CLAUSE 97.—(Contributions between local education authorities.)

I beg to move, in page 68, line 32, to leave out from "authority" to "education," in line 33, and to insert "for the primary or secondary."

The object of this Amendment is to omit young people's colleges from the scope of Sub-section (1), which relates to contributions by the authority of the area, to which a child belongs, to the authority which is educating the child. Where a young person goes to a young people's college in an area other than where he resides, the question of the contribution
1925
to the educating authority will be dealt with by agreement under the new Subsection (5) put down later as a Government Amendment to this Clause.

I beg to move, in page 68, line 34, after "authority" to insert:
then if a claim therefor is made within the prescribed period.
This is a Government Amendment put down to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). The Board, under this arrangement, will have to make a Regulation prescribing the period in which claims can be made for contributions. This part of the Clause deals with the re-enactment of what is known as the Institution Children's Act. Up to the present, a claim has had to be made within two years if a local authority educating a child is to be able to claim a contribution from the authority who is responsible for its education. We shall make regulations which will prescribe some period within which the claim must be made.

I beg to move, in page 68, line 38, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if in the case of any child or young person the Minister is satisfied that there was no sufficient reason why the education provided for him should not have been provided by the authority for the area to which he belongs the Minister may, on the application of that authority, direct that no contribution shall be recoverable in respect thereof under this Sub-section.
The Amendment deals with the case where a local education authority, having a perfectly good education service of its own, is called upon by another local education authority, to pay in respect of a child who has gone across the border for no good reason at all. In the past, this situation has led to some difficulty, but the Minister will be able to adjudicate, under the Amendment, where the local education authority supplying the education wishes to be able to recover from the area in which the guardian of the child resides. I have known unfortunate incidents of poaching, for instance, by a head teacher of a school on one side of a border, on preserves just over the boundary. It is clearly wrong that the authority whose
1926
children have been poached in those circumstances should, if they are making suitable provision for education, have to pay for children who have gone into the area of the authority to which the children have been attracted.

I beg to move, in page 69, line 19, to leave out from "him" to the end of line 27.

This Amendment deletes proviso (b) to Clause 97 (4). The proviso has been very greatly objected to by such organisations as Dr. Barnado's Homes, whose work I am sure we all recognise. They are not the guardians of the children, and it is felt that it is not right that they should have to shoulder the responsibilities that would have been thrown on them by the Sub-section as placed in the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 69, line 27, at the end, to add:
(5) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing the payment by agreement between local education authorities of contributions in respect of education provided by one authority on behalf of another in cases where the authority by whom the education is provided is not entitled to recover contributions under this Section.
This is the Amendment to which I alluded earlier, and under which an arrangement will be made between various education authorities to defray the cost of educating those who are in young people's colleges, in areas other than those financially responsible for their education.

I am not quite sure whether I ought to ask this question here, or on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I apologise, Mr. Williams, if this is the wrong moment. I wish to know whether the Clause as now being amended, does or does not facilitate an arrangement between local education authorities for payment of post-school expenses?

I should like to be assured, if possible, about the position that will arise when a child of school-leaving age, going to some higher kind of learning, moves, or his parents move, out of one area to another. In the past, difficulties have arisen in such cases in both areas, one area disclaiming responsibility because the child no longer lives in that area, and the other disclaiming responsibility because the child was not educated with them. I should like to know that it will be easier than before for the Board to make sure that there are reasonable reciprocity treaties between local education authorities.

I must apologise, Mr. Williams, for not being here earlier when I understand my name was called, but I was in a committee upstairs. The only course I can pursue is to ask the Minister now, whether he will reply to a question. At present, a child can, by agreement between one local education authority which perhaps has not within its area provision for that child's education, and another local authority, receive education in the latter's area. The authority from which the child has gone, is responsible, but under the Clause as it stands, it would appear to me that the child, on its own volition, or perhaps at the desire of the parents, may go to another elementary education area, although there is a satisfactory education provision within the area in which it resides. The parents send the child into the other area, and expect the authorities there to be responsible. Is it possible for a child to go from an area where education is provided, to the area of another authority, and the authority where it resides to be responsible for paying for the education to the other authority, although they themselves are in a position to provide it?

I should like to put a very small point to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been chairman of the Surrey Education Committee, which used to send a great many children to London for a particular kind of education, and especially to technical institutes. I would ask him whether, in order to avoid the amount of bargaining that has to go on between neighbouring authorities, who wish to arrive at a fair price for the education provided for what they call "out-
1928
county" children, it would be possible to fix a scale applicable to each kind of service rendered. That would save a good deal of time and trouble as well as bad temper, between local authorities.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), the problem of following up, when a young person has taken a scholarship in one place and his parents have moved from one area to another, is, I believe, covered by the Bill. I am sorry I cannot give him the exact reference at the moment, but I undertake to find it and let him know. It is a situation that we are very desirous of meeting. Frequently that kind of thing has happened. A child has been granted a scholarship by one local authority and his parents have moved. Wesleyan ministers appear to be the usual victims. A lad or a girl may have been granted a university scholarship for at least three years, yet it may be that the receiving authority is not prepared to carry on the scholarship. Clearly, that is a condition of affairs that we do not wish to see continued. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), he will find that the Amendment I moved on behalf of the Minister, containing a new proviso to Sub-section (1), deals with the point. If there was no necessity for a child to go into the area which educates him, my right hon. Friend can rule that the authority within which the child resides need not pay the authority which has received the child.

The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) is covered, so far as agreement is concerned, by the new Sub-section (5) which I moved. I do not think it is possible, in view of the salary scales and general costs that prevail in these technological institutions, to have any scale fixed that would be generally applicable throughout the country.

§
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.